777 Landing/Takeoff Distance

Recommended Posts

I have a landing/take off distance question. I own the 737 NGX and the 777-200. The 737 NGX uses more runway for Landing and Take off than the 777. The 777 can land less than 4000 feet. Is there something wrong with my install for the 777? I am only assuming being that if it is a heavy the landing distance should be at least double that length.

Next question, I was thinking of buying the 747. Is the landing distance more than the 777? When I land I want to feel like it took some effort to stop and I can land the 777 shorter than my friends in a 737.

Thanks for any help or manual adjustments that will help.

Doug Benware

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have a landing/take off distance question. I own the 737 NGX and the 777-200. The 737 NGX uses more runway for Landing and Take off than the 777. The 777 can land less than 4000 feet. Is there something wrong with my install for the 777? I am only assuming being that if it is a heavy the landing distance should be at least double that length.

Hi, Doug,

Welcome to the Avsim and PMDG forums!

Your question is very interesting! I've never directly compared the two landing and takeoff distances. However, it's not easy to answer because both distances depend upon a number of factors. I doubt that a fully loaded (max takeoff weight) 777-300ER will take off using less runway than a fully loaded NGX of any type. Have you compared both fully loaded?

But that assumes everything else being equal. For example, if either aircraft (same load) takes off w/ a strong headwind it will use up less runway than with no headwind since w/ a headwind it will reach takeoff airspeed sooner. Likewise, w/ a strong headwind, the landing roll will be shorter due to a slower ground speed at touchdown.

If I get a chance, I'll take a look at the performance tables that come w/ both aircraft -- you might want to do the same.

Link to post

Share on other sites

This is a good question, but one a lot more complex than one might first assume. Sure the 777 is a larger, and much heavier aircraft, but you have to look a lot deeper than the surface:

It's worth mentioning that the 737 has brakes on four wheels (two on each of the mains) to slow it down. The 777 has three times as much, with twelve. Sure, it's much larger and heavier, but with twelve wheels with stopping power, you have a lot of energy absorption potential.

It's all broken down to the basic F = m * a. Increases in m result in a larger F to be absorbed. The 737's autobrake level two gets you about 5 ft/s² of deceleration. At MLW (-700), that's an absorbed F of 670000 lbf/s². Assuming four brakes share this load equally, that's 167500 lbf/s² per brake.

For the 777, assuming the same 5 ft/s² of deceleration, at MLW (-200LR) that's an absorbed F of 2460000 lbf/s². Assuming twelve brakes share this load equally, that's 205000 lbf/s² per brake.

In the end, the difference is "only" about 37500 lbf/s². Solving for the equivalent mass, that's only about 7500 pounds of difference per brake. So, despite the 737 and 777 themselves being 358000 lbs apart (MLWs of 134000 lbs and 492000 lbs, respectively), the individual brakes only see them as 7500 lbs apart.

Add to this fact that the 777 brakes have an extra disc compared to the 737 (5 and 4, respectively), you could break it down like this: 737 is 41875 lbf/s² per disc, and the 777 is 41000 lbf/s² per disc. Since the rim diameter is only about an inch different between the two planes, you could assume the brake disc size is relatively similar enough to dismiss surface area differences. That 875 lbf/s² difference amounts to an equivalent mass of 175 pounds of difference per pad...or just about the weight of myself. Not too different when you brake (har har) it all down.

The inverse is true for takeoff performance. Remember that, despite the 777 being significantly heavier, its two GE90s are each the size of the 737's fuselage (in diameter). They put out significantly more thrust, as well.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I guess I shouldn't assume unless I give it a little deeper thought. Thanks for the detailed information, This is why I have bought PMDG software so I can learn and with the added perusing of the forums I am getting what I paid for.

Thanks again guys.

Doug Benware

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The inverse is true for takeoff performance. Remember that, despite the 777 being significantly heavier, its two GE90s are each the size of the 737's fuselage (in diameter). They put out significantly more thrust, as well.

Kyle has given an excellent explanation of braking and takeoff capabilities of the two aircraft. Now I will give you some actual figures. VHHH-KLAX in 777F, 100 tons of cargo, 257000 lbs. of fuel, flaps 5, assumed temperature of 37C, takeoff used about 10000 ft. of 12500 ft. runway. At KLAX I plan on landing on 25L and exiting the runway at taxiway N about two-thirds down an 11000 ft. runway. Amazing takeoff and stopping power.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You're welcome. And thanks for being one of the few who reads the rules (or incidentally managed to sign your posts without reading them). Either way - I'm pretty sure that's a first for me (to not have to point a new person to the 'rules' thread)...so thanks!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

This is a good question, but one a lot more complex than one might first assume. Sure the 777 is a larger, and much heavier aircraft, but you have to look a lot deeper than the surface:

It's worth mentioning that the 737 has brakes on four wheels (two on each of the mains) to slow it down. The 777 has three times as much, with twelve. Sure, it's much larger and heavier, but with twelve wheels with stopping power, you have a lot of energy absorption potential.

It's all broken down to the basic F = m * a. Increases in m result in a larger F to be absorbed. The 737's autobrake level two gets you about 5 ft/s² of deceleration. At MLW (-700), that's an absorbed F of 670000 lbf/s². Assuming four brakes share this load equally, that's 167500 lbf/s² per brake.

For the 777, assuming the same 5 ft/s² of deceleration, at MLW (-200LR) that's an absorbed F of 2460000 lbf/s². Assuming twelve brakes share this load equally, that's 205000 lbf/s² per brake.

In the end, the difference is "only" about 37500 lbf/s². Solving for the equivalent mass, that's only about 7500 pounds of difference per brake. So, despite the 737 and 777 themselves being 358000 lbs apart (MLWs of 134000 lbs and 492000 lbs, respectively), the individual brakes only see them as 7500 lbs apart.

Add to this fact that the 777 brakes have an extra disc compared to the 737 (5 and 4, respectively), you could break it down like this: 737 is 41875 lbf/s² per disc, and the 777 is 41000 lbf/s² per disc. Since the rim diameter is only about an inch different between the two planes, you could assume the brake disc size is relatively similar enough to dismiss surface area differences. That 875 lbf/s² difference amounts to an equivalent mass of 175 pounds of difference per pad...or just about the weight of myself. Not too different when you brake (har har) it all down.

The inverse is true for takeoff performance. Remember that, despite the 777 being significantly heavier, its two GE90s are each the size of the 737's fuselage (in diameter). They put out significantly more thrust, as well.

Reassuring to know there are actually people on this forum that know what they are on about.....you're one of the very few Kyle.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

One thing that I once became aware of is that, contrarily to what we think after using airliners like the 777 or the 747-400 in FSX, the reversers have a huge effect but only down to around 60 knots, decaying after around 80 knots, and being practically inefficient at taxi speeds or when the aircraft is stopped. They shouldn't actually be used at such low speeds, even less at high reverse power settings, and... even an empty 744 or 777 will not move back on reverse!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Regarding the reversers - remember that if you're using autobrake 2/3/4, reversers are mostly smoke and noise and give you that feeling of being part of a team - but don't make much difference in stopping distance because the autobrakes work on a deceleration rate. So using reversers shouldn't make a lot of difference to distance, just take some load off the wheel brakes.

From my 777 line experience and quite a bit of 737 jumpseat time (I have no operational experience int he 737) - the 777 has great braking. Depending on the 737 (most have steel brakes?) - the Carbon Brakes in the 777 also make a significant difference.

I went from the A310-300/A300-600R to the B777 many years ago and stopping performance was one of the big changes we saw. So much better in the 777.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Depending on the 737 (most have steel brakes?) - the Carbon Brakes in the 777 also make a significant difference

In 737NGX have the option to select from both carbon or steel brakes, but I didn't really notice any significant difference in applying breaking force. The only difference is that the carbon breakes has a much longer life then steel brakes because they support and works better at higher temperature.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I had thought that Carbon Brakes had better operating characteristics as well, which translated into better braking performance. It would be interesting to know if anyone has experience of a retro fit from steel to carbon and whether braking distance was affected.

Ready to stand corrected ... as always ...

Hmmm

I had thought that Carbon Brakes had better operating characteristics as well, which translated into better braking performance. It would be interesting to know if anyone has experience of a retro fit from steel to carbon and whether braking distance was affected.

Ready to stand corrected ... as always ...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

What I mean is that when you have a runaway long 11.200 FT, slowing down 50 FT first or after doesn't means nothing for me. That's way I say the difference of breaking is irrelevant. And also there is another factor to consider that a 737 has less "volume" then a 777 and the aerodynamic forces on the ground are different, you feel this even when you taxiing, many times with 737 and throthle to IDLE, you rech 15 to 20 knots on the taxi way, with 777 you should arrive near zero velocity. The friction with the air and the ground depending very much by the volume of the object wich push the air in front of him (newton's law), because the air push in the opposite direction with the same force. You can observe this by doing a little experiment: without touching any brakes after landing, and see the difference where stopped the two plains, one in confront of the other.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I've just been advised that to date Boeing have not done the certification testing for carbon brakes retrofitted to the 737's. Enough testing was done to ensure that the unit guaranteed at least equivalent/better performance, but to save costs the full test regime was not done to produce the data. Apparently the weight reduction in the hardware involved is about 300kg.

The Max on the other hand will come with carbon brakes and the full data equivalent for better landing performance - and rejected takeoff performance.

AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

Donation Goals

AVSIM's 2018 Fundraising Goal

Donate to our annual general fund. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.